On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 06:13:20PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 06.09.13 10:10, Derek Martin wrote: > > If it's sensitive enough to be encrypted outgoing, it's sensitive > > enough to be encrypted on disk... even if you haven't actually sent it > > yet. > > That's entirely convincing, but it doesn't follow that this has anything > to do with mutt, I figure. I use vim within mutt, and it is the editor > which needs to handle encrypted files, using whatever method(s) it > offers. Vim offers two levels of encryption - blowfish or zip. (OK, the > latter hardly qualifies, so there's only one method of any real > adequacy.)
I don't think this is correct, because, by that logic, it would also be the editor's responsibility to deal with (i.e. decrypt) received encrypted emails... Mutt's job is to handle emails, and if those are received encrypted, or are to be stored encrypted, then dealing with that is (or ought to be) mutt's job. I speak from a user's perspective, but doing as you suggest strikes me as a very bad design decision. But again, I speak as a user, so I might be wrong... --Óscar -- Óscar Pereira | https://erroneousthoughts.org Rules of Optimisation: Rule 1: Don't do it. Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it yet. -- M.A. Jackson
pgpSwArwzIjsm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
